Reply With Quoteand Aberdeens not??Originally Posted by Pacman1903
Hall Of Fame
F@ck that its full of mutants. Especially on a Saturday
Also that would involve going out myself in Inverurie and not going for a pint before fitba. How would that be any kind of solution
Hall Of Fame
and Aberdeens not??
Hall Of Fame
More diluted as its bigger
They are also no match for the Garioch mutants
Hall Of Fame
I'm not quite sure who is actually saying this. I don't think it is the club themselves but I'm not entirely sure it's an independent body either.
Taken form P and J:
"But the economic team’s submission reads: “Without a new stadium, AFC’s European matches would have to be played in Dundee whilst the ability to compete for friendly or underage football events, or rugby related events, could be undermined.”
In a detailed analysis, the civil servants say the development would create a “centre of excellence” for sport in the region and add around £9.5million a year to the economy and create 347 to 408 full time jobs."
Hall Of Fame
Are they not just feeding off the sh@te the have heard. Dens or Tannadump are not fit for purpose, Its a lie.
Dundee have ground bought for a new stadium because Dens is not fit for purpose. (A lot of similar line being spouted there too I might add)
Hall Of Fame
Maybe Dundee's New ground will meet the criteria.......
Are Dundee to progress ahead of Aberdeen? Bottom 6 here we come on that basis
International
It's from the new pre-determination hearing report, about the economic development comment at the start of December. The papers/club have taken this dumb chunk out of it for propaganda.
It compares the 8,500 at Pittodrie to 13,476-15,000 at Kingsford propaganda which was written by the club.
It also compares to 'do nothing' which means literally let Pittodrie deteriorate to death with no maintenance. The economics lot actually takes this as a scenario that will happen, plus playing in front of 8,500.
They've also taken the club's city centre spend estimate of £510,000 per annum, or an average of £1.45 per fan per year.
International
Surprised there's no article on the part directly below it
Aberdeen City Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority (SDPA) – Restates earlier position that the development in its current form and location does not accord with the Strategic Development Plan (SDP), would result in the loss of 25ha of Green Belt land and the coalescence of urban areas. The development be inappropriately sited, giving rise to unsustainable travel patterns in a manner contrary to the modal shift sought by the SDP. Further, there would be a negative impact on the city centre.
The following specific points are also made within the SDPA’s most recent response:
It has not been demonstrated that co-location is necessary. Whilst the additional information highlights issues of deliverability with sequentially preferable sites, the consideration of alternatives has been undertaken on the basis of fixed requirements for a certain size of site, rather than on the basis of site suitability. SDPA reiterates its view that the sequential test should be carried out on the basis of separating the stadium and training facilities.
It is demonstrated that there is not a suitable allocated site of 25ha within Aberdeen City.
Submissions contend that there is insufficient developable land available at Loirston to build stadium and required parking – agree that this seems to be the case.
Suggests it is unlikely that the pedestrian footbridge will be sufficient. Notes that design shows no disabled access, but assumes this could be addressed through assessment of a specific planning application for the bridge.
Previously raised concerns regarding loss of jobs in Seaton and impact on City Centre from lost revenue. Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC) new material suggests more jobs would be created than envisaged by the earlier EKOS report. Notes that this more optimistic view is based on a series of assumptions. Job losses and loss of revenue is presented as low in context of overall North East economy, but these are still potentially significant to small enterprises. Discussion of benefits focuses on Kingsford and for AFC, but given the increased focus on the regeneration of Aberdeen city centre and recognition of its value as a regional asset, the loss of employment and business revenue seems to undermine such efforts.
The assumptions made in relation to additional events suggest a greater intensity of use, and would appear to contradict the applicants’ assertion that it would be an intermittently used facility
Hall Of Fame
My life long ambition of starting an American Football team in Inverurie now has its name. Cheers for that.
International
It's all wrapped up in verbal gymnastics and discounting certain spenders and so on. It's ****ing ridiculous. At a very conservative estimate I spend £50 per game in that east end of Aberdeen.
It's incredible that so many think they are the smart ones blindly following the club's propaganda, and the W@NKS and anyone objecting have got it wrong. They may have the wrong motivations but the analysis of the people they've paid to do it is far more correct and the club are basically talking out their arse about almost everything.
Posting Permissions
